Jump to content
  • entries
    34
  • comments
    516
  • views
    24,120

Liberté, égalité, fraternité!


Vladimir

631 views

french_revolution.jpg

Oh, you noble Karmaites, champions of the little guy, protectors of the weak, bringers of hope, scourge of the strong. Imagining yourselves the creators of a new world, free from tyranny, where might no longer makes right, where nations do not have to live in fear of attack, where conflict is not a matter of mere chance, and where war is reserved rightfully for the deserving. Such sentiment, such morality, is it not your greatest strength? Is it not what binds you together as a whole in the face of such fierce internal contradictions?

But wait, what's this? Someone has stepped out from the crowd. A small, introverted figure, his old tattered cap grasped firmly in both hands, he contrasts starkly with the prestigious crowd. Did a tramp wander in off the street, or did one of the help get lost? Wait, no, it's the little guy! And he's taking to the stage! Come to cheer forth the Karmaites, perhaps? To pledge a meagre donation of gold and weapons to aid the cause? No, he comes with all that he has, words.

Thunderous applause rips round the auditorium as he makes his way across to roars of 'Liberté!', 'Egalité!', 'Fraternité!' The shuffling figure at the front stops and steps up to the podium. The Karmaites notice a small red badge, symbolising his home in the red sphere, Pacifican territory. The room erupts once more, a standing ovation, cries of 'Free Red!' ring around the hall. Finally, eager to hear the voice that they fought so hard to liberate, the noise dies down, and the figure at the front moves to speak. His mouth opens, his meek voice barely carrying the disproportionately large stage that he has cautiously dared step upon. He speaks for a way of life, simple, independent, peaceful and prosperous. He speaks for thousands like him, his neighbours, friends and colleagues. He speaks of the war and what it means to him, outside the power structures and institutions of global politics. He speaks of freedom.

The room sours. Who is this young upstart? What are his credentials, his relevance? Noticing that the gentle nods have been replaced by and angry glances, the figure continues. He speaks of freedom from unprovoked attack, freedom to enjoy his simple life without being crushed under the mighty weight of another at a whim, freedom to pursue his interests unhindered, freedom to continue with life as it was.

Outrage! Heated discussion erupts across the hall. How dare this uppity unaligned tell us what to do! Doesn't he know who he's talking to? The odd shout begins to rise above the base. 'Tyrant!' cries one, 'Oppressor!' howls another, 'Agent of the Pacific!' accuses a third. The figure looks on stoically and moves to speak again. Does Karma not fight for freedom from attack and from fear? For a world where might no longer makes right? So many, like he, came to red to experience such blissful freedom, and so they did. Would Karma seek to destroy such a sanctuary?

But it's too late. Already the Karmaites have cast aside their sentimentality. Sitting atop of the world their vision has been widened, and the words of this commoner, this plebeian, no longer ring true. He is not trying to free himself from these things, he is trying to enslave us! By suggesting that the little guy should be protected he is instituting himself as a world police! By suggesting that he should be free to live in peace he is attempting to dictate our policies! Who can decide who attacks whom? We cannot label one attack wrong and another right, for it is dependent on the individuals involved and only them! Who else can decide what is a valid reason to attack, it is purely subjective! Freedom goes for everything, freedom to attack and freedom to be attacked!

The stoic expression on the figure's dishevelled face begins to break as he realises the psychological process before him. But what about the thousands of nations that will be ravaged, the dozens of alliances destroyed, the many friends and rulers that disappear from our world altogether! Many in the audience can be seen waving their hands to dismiss the now despised figure. What of them? They should have learned to protect themselves, or submitted to the politics of another by becoming a protectorate. And in any case, what do these people matter, they aren't one of us, a NAAC or a LUE. They're lucky we don't just wipe them out and be done with it! A man stands up in the audience, and the hall quietens expecting a lecture on the universal nature of rights, as the Karmaites have become so accustomed to. But instead they are greeted with something new; something short, concise and powerful: "Planet Bob will never be tailor suited after your needs and desires. Get over it." The man is mobbed by those around him, seeking to pat his back and shake his hand.

The lonely figure on stage, now long forgotten as the hall breaks into a rampant military anthem, reflects. So suddenly has the morality of man become the morality of god within this group; so suddenly has freedom for all men become freedom only for the self-appointed divine to act as they please at the expense of the rest. No longer is morality based on opposition to the ruling structure, on freedom from tyranny, but instead on reshaping the world in a form that suits the politico-economic strategy of the new ruling structures, neglecting or destroying all that lies without. Power may or may not corrupt, but it always changes one's perspective, and the perspective of the newly powerful has little room for him. He makes one last speech, unheard, but unmistakable in its clarity.

Oh, you noble Karmaites, champions of the strong, protectors of oppression, bringers of despair, scourge of the weak. Imagining yourselves the creators of a new world, free from petty sentimentality, where might makes right, where nations must forever watch over their shoulder, where conflict may come at any time, and where war is reserved rightfully for those who cannot defend themselves. Such nobility, such mastery of power, is it not your greatest strength? Is it not what binds you together as a whole in the face of such fierce internal contradictions?

***

All Karmaite opinion taken from [1] [2]

22 Comments


Recommended Comments

Yet more strawman from Vladimir. Those in Karma never have said that we all have the same opinions on everything. Some fight for idealism, some for their own security, some because of their treaties, some for a combination of those factors. Many seek a better world, few think that we are gonna bring in some kind of utopia.

Link to comment

This is on the subject of the Revenge Doctrine and the common Karma reactions to it, not on 'utopia', and it certainly doesn't claim that everyone thinks the same on everything. Yet more strawmen from Azaghul.

Link to comment

Huh. This article is a very different approach from your usual essays. For what it's worth, more engaging, and I think it gets your point across much better (for the purposes of poking holes in Karma's rhetoric). Again, while I do not always agree with your views, or that of Francoism, I applaud your general argument.

However, it wouldn't be a proper response if I didn't try to poke at least one hole in here. I think the Revenge Doctrine set a very interesting precedent in Cybernations, one which I think that will eventually be repeated, but not by individual alliances, but by color-sphere blocs. In of itself, I have no problems with the Revenge Doctrine, but it would not have existed without the Moldavi Doctrine - which I do have problems with. The Moldavi Doctrine is essentially an infringement on the sovereignty of individual alliances by denying them access to the red sphere. You are protecting the independence of individual red nations through the Revenge Doctrine as long as they don't make an alliance - isn't that against the ability of nations to make choices for themselves?

Link to comment
This is on the subject of the Revenge Doctrine and the common Karma reactions to it, not on 'utopia', and it certainly doesn't claim that everyone thinks the same on everything. Yet more strawmen from Azaghul.

Than what is this about?

Oh, you noble Karmaites, champions of the little guy, protectors of the weak, bringers of hope, scourge of the strong. Imagining yourselves the creators of a new world, free from tyranny, where might no longer makes right, where nations do not have to live in fear of attack, where conflict is not a matter of mere chance, and where war is reserved rightfully for the deserving. Such sentiment, such morality, is it not your greatest strength? Is it not what binds you together as a whole in the face of such fierce internal contradictions?

Clearly your point, as in your last blog entry, is to try to paint Karma as hypocrites and not really any different from NPO. Unfortunately you have little basis to back up your examples, especially in your starting premise about a world free from conflict, other than perhaps a few random OWF posts.

Link to comment

That's called an introduction, Azaghul. You have to read the rest of the post to get the point being made.

I completely disagree that the Moldavi Doctrine is in any way a violation of others' sovereignty, Ferrous, but more than that I disagree with your assumption that the Revenge Doctrine is dependent on it. The two are usually mentioned in the same breath, but the Revenge Doctrine is fully capable of operating in the absence of the Moldavi Doctrine -- there's simply no logical reason why it couldn't.

It has been a clever Karma trick to equate the more popular to the less popular and then attack the latter, but when it comes down to it it's nothing more than a red herring.

Link to comment

The text of the Revenge Doctrine explicitly builds on Moldavi. So, basically, no.

This supposedly poor and helpless unaligned nation has many solutions to his problem that do not involve us letting Pacifica off so he can be saved, but nice try. Perhaps you can go and read posts by Pacificans in threads like the \m/ ZI show, or other threads by unaligned nations being raided by the Initiative, for inspiration :rolleyes:.

Link to comment

I know what it says, I helped write it. And yes, it builds on the Moldavi Doctrine, but it is not simply a repetition of it, and as such one cannot attack one just by attacking the other.

The Revenge Doctrine, for example, doesn't state that no other alliance can be permitted on red, which is what Ferrous is attacking -- something unique to the Moldavi Doctrine. It is no more valid than if I were to attack Gramlins' policy on tech trading by criticising the way you organise your military.

And I do not see anywhere my saying that Pacifica should be 'let off' (as if that makes any sense). I am speaking of popular Karma reactions towards the Revenge Doctrine and its central point -- the protection of the unaligned -- and contrasting it to wider Karma arguments. Seems most people will put a lot of effort into discussing anything but.

As for your 'I am rubber you are glue' defence, I'm afraid it doesn't work when you are claiming to be diametrically opposed to the philosophy you are using to defend yourself.

Link to comment

The subtext of your post is clearly 'Hey Karma are destroying Revenge, somebody stop them, won't somebody please think of the childrenunaligned'.

I'm afraid it doesn't work when you are claiming to be diametrically opposed to the philosophy you are using to defend yourself.

Nor does it work when you suddenly jump the fence to be all concerned about the little guy after three years of 'do something about it' ;).

I actually quite like the Revenge Doctrine, even if it was for other reasons and you supported the destruction of similar things on other colours by your allies. The reason there is a strong push against it though is nothing to do with protection, it is because (despite what you claim) it is directly related to so-called NPO 'sovereignty' over Red, and that is what people want to see disposed of. Some more quotes from the Revenge post since you seem to be content to deny it so far ...

The New Pacific Order has complete sovereignty over the Red Team.

What this means is simple: we decide who may hold Senate seats on the red team, who may be sanctioned on the red team and so forth.

Any violation of this policy will be regarded and dealt with as a violation of Pacifican sovereignty.

One team, One alliance, One Emperor.

You still want to claim it stands alone and not on top of Moldavi?

Link to comment

I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what I am saying here, and are projecting your own hypocrisy onto me.

But I am pointing out the hypocrisy, intellectual gymnastics, and changing political positions of Karma propagandists as they move from one position in the power structure to another -- something intellectually fascinating and consistent with my theories of morality and international relations.

This cannot be equated to the Order since we have a completely different way of looking at the world. Our policies can only be confusing in this regard if you start with flawed assumptions about them.

I never claimed that it stands alone; I said that it was not dependent. And moreover, the arguments against the Moldavi Doctrine have very little to do with our claim to sovereignty, and everything to do with red unaligned nations not deserving protection.

Link to comment
But I am pointing out the hypocrisy, intellectual gymnastics, and changing political positions of Karma propagandists as they move from one position in the power structure to another -- something intellectually fascinating and consistent with my theories of morality and international relations.

Than that would make the falsehoods in your "introduction" relevant, wouldn't it, since they are your framing of the original Karma position that you to try to say aren't being applied in the case of the revenge doctrine and therefore Karma are being hypocrites. Your trying to create a strawman that doesn't exist about Karma's ideals, without that strawman your charge of hypocrisy falls flat.

Link to comment

They aren't falsehoods, they are the popular propaganda lines that Karma took coming into this conflict; and of course they are relevant or I wouldn't have put them in there. But nowhere does it speak anything of a utopia or claim that everyone thinks the same. It is a spot of literary flair leading into a more specific discussion on the Revenge Doctrine -- as Ferrous was observant enough to spot, I went for a slightly different approach in writing this piece.Really, I know you're eager to prove that you didn't just read the first paragraph and incorrectly guess what the rest said, but for the rest of us it gets tiresome quickly.

Link to comment

No, you misrepresent and exaggerate Karma's position to set up your straw man so that you can claim the opposition to the revenge doctrine is the opposite of it. I don't think anyone important in Karma would tell you that war isn't gonna happen again, no one has to live without fear of attack, and the powerful have more freedom of action. Many in Karma don't fight for any kind of ideals at all, only to honor their treaties and protect themselves against a threat. Those that do profess a kind of idealism express disdain for the abuses that NPO perpetrated because it had too much power: eternal-ZI, very harsh terms, and the like.

What you said isn't relevant, it's a construct of yours to frame a straw man. Sure you might find a few obscure members that might profess some of the things you mentioned, that doesn't make it not a misrepresentation.

After that it's just a discussion of the revenge doctrine which is meaningless without it.

Link to comment

I did't misrepresent anything -- all of these things were central to Karma propaganda. I never claimed that they said war would never happen again, and you misinterpret the point about 'fear of attack', which was and continues to be central on the basis of the ridiculous claim that alliances couldn't do anything without risk of being 'curbstomped' by the so-called hegemony. And the idealism you mention falls neatly into the categories I put out, so in that you are agreeing with me.

And while this introduction is correct, it is nevertheless a bit of flair to open the article, which the rest of the article doesn't rely on at all, thus making your objections irrelevant. If you read the rest of the article you would know this.

Link to comment

They aren't central to Karma propaganda. The things I list might loosely fall into your categories, but that doesn't mean your categories are correct as those categories you describe include things that weren't intended. I like Lizards, that doesn't mean I like all reptiles even if I like lizards.

If your point is to point out hypocrisy, the point of hypocrisy is to establish that someone holds two sets of ideals/and or actions that are contradictory. Your first paragraph is falsely establishing one set to contradict the ideas (none of which come from leaders in Karma) about red you present later. With only the discussion of red and without the ideals of your first paragraph, no contradiction exists.

Link to comment

And I appreciate that you did, but this was and is the prevailing attitude, especially among your leaders.

It just isn't feasible to discuss every single opinion in a blog entry.

Link to comment

I have seen different. But we could go back and forth on this all day, there's really no way to prove one way or the other (at least without going back through hundreds of pages of posts, which I am not willing to do (and I expect neither are you)). The proof will be in the terms (if we are ever allowed to see them), but if you are supportive of the Revenge Doctrine I wouldn't rest and assume that it is safe.

Link to comment
Guest
Add a comment...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...